Sunday School - The Roman Catholic Controversy - Part5

Let's stand this morning as we sing to the Lord. Holy, holy, holy,

Lord God almighty. Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.

Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty.

God in three persons, blessed

Trinity. Holy, holy, holy, all the saints adore thee.

Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea.

Jeroboam, Manson, and Seraphim falling down before thee.

Who were, and are, and evermore shall be.

Holy, holy, holy, though the darkness hide thee.

Though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see.

Only thou art holy, there is none beside thee.

Perfect in power, in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy,

Lord God almighty. All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea.

Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty.

God in three persons, blessed

Trinity. Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty.

All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea. Holy, holy, holy,

Lord God almighty. All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea.

All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea. All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea.

Kind of a impasse. Because of how and who gets to define these definitions.

Such as the justification, such as the gospel. And of course when it goes into Christian dogma and specific, particular doctrines of the

Bible. Who gets to determine the true teaching of such matters. So we're going to delve a little bit deeper into this subject.

I think it would be helpful if actually we allow, we went and did some reading in the chapter. Because he quotes from some notable sources here.

Including the first one, the Council of Trent. So let's look at that first quote from the Council of Trent in the fourth chapter of this book.

It says, furthermore, to check the unversed spirit. It decrees that no one will rely on his own judgment.

Shall matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of the Christian doctrine. The story of the

Holy Scripture according to his own conceptions. Presumed to interpret them contrary to that sense which

Holy Mother Church. To whom it belongs to. Judge of their true sense and interpretation.

Has held hold or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. Even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.

Let's stop there for a moment. That's kind of a lot of jargon there. What's the sense that statement in Trent is making?

What is it trying to get across? Isn't it saying that no one is able to interpret the scriptures on their own.

But the church is the one that says it. And we know what it says.

To some degree, yes. To some degree. Let me just ask this overarching question.

Any specific things that stood out to you in this week's reading? Any questions you may have arisen during the reading of this week?

It's a very important thought. I think it's probably the most important chapter we've read so far.

It does talk about the fact that every believer is responsible before God. Who, you know, says that's why all the chaos.

That's why all the problems. Because they can't. They have no authority. Maybe just when they know, they decide what it says.

That's true. And that's something we're going to delve deeper into in just a little bit. Sarah?

On the next page on page 46, it was interesting that he points out that the Roman Catholic Church, not only do they say the church can interpret the scriptures, they're saying that it's only the church that tells us that the scripture itself is inspired.

Like we know that scripture is infallible because the church tells us so. But that's a weird step backward because how do we know the church is infallible?

It feels like we as practitioners have a circular argument saying the Bible is true. The Bible says the Bible is true. But you have to end in a circle.

Never ending through the backward hops to the next infallible thing. That's right. And if the church basically, in terms of authority, to be able to decree that the

Bible is inspired, then where does the church get its authority? It has to be outside of the scripture itself.

Right. So it's a very interesting conundrum that they put themselves in when they make such statements. That's a good point.

Anyone else? Anything to add to that too? Yes. Well, then I guess what's the appropriate use of quoting church fathers?

Is that a question? Yes. So what's the appropriate use of quoting church fathers? Is that it?

I think the church fathers have a lot of value. I think one of the things that is wrong with this chapter, of course, is that I think it's statements made to the effect that, well, the

Catholic Church is true because it holds, at least to some degree, to what seems to be the mainstream view of the early church fathers, like Church of Trinity, Ignatius, Augustine, all these individuals.

I would say it's actually the opposite. If you look deeper into the early church fathers, you'd see a lot of the frequencies that we're going to go into today.

And on top of that, I always say this. The church fathers, especially the pre -Nineteenth fathers, were kind of like a

YouTube comment section. They just had every single view, and there was no cohesiveness.

One of the things that they did have in common was the interpretive power of the church. And I don't disagree with that.

I don't think Protestants disagree with that in principle either, and that's why we hold to a confession, right? We hold to a confession because we believe that Godly people who have come before us have examined these things, weighted these things, and that their examination of these things should be considered in faith and practice.

Not that they are absolute authorities in the interpretation of Scripture, but rather that we acknowledge that people who have come before us have dealt into these matters, probably much deeper than anyone today has.

When we look at the early performers, we tend to think of people in those time periods as uneducated, but I'm telling you, these people were far more educated.

Who here can speak five languages? These kids were being homeschooled, and they were learning

Latin and Greek by the age of five, and so these people were far smarter than we were in some respects.

So that would be my answer, is that I wouldn't rely too much on the church for all this. They are helpful, just as the

Greeks are, just as our profession is. They can give great insight, but I don't see them as being the interpretive power of the church.

So Scripture is our suspicion, that's what we're talking about. You got something to add to that, Pastor? Any other thoughts or questions on the reading before we go a little deeper into the teaching?

It's certainly an interesting reading this week. Now when Trent, when the Council of Trent comes together and they say, listen, you knuckleheads cannot interpret

Scripture by yourselves. You need Mother to do so. Now who's

Mother? Church. The church. Man, there's so many, you know,

I just have to bring this up because of my personal experiences. There are so many similarities between Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics that's scary.

The reason why it's scary is because Jehovah's Witnesses hate Catholics. Like they see them as like mortal enemies.

And I remember I had a Jehovah's Witness pal in my congregation, I was a Jehovah's Witness, and we went out to field service, preaching.

That's what they call it, field service. And I remember him for like just the whole time of us knocking on doors, him just talking about how he really, he hates

Roman Catholicism because he grew up Roman Catholic. He's like, oh, it's the horror of Babylon, it's this, it's that, it's all these crazy things.

You know, Roman Catholics, he's like, you know, I know we're supposed to be, you know, forgiving, but I just can't forgive the

Pope. If I saw the Pope, I'd give up peace of my mind and all these things. And I was like, all right, man, take it easy. We're trying to share good news here.

But, you know, and that's not uncommon. There's a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses who absolutely hate

Roman Catholics. But the irony of it is that they are very similar. So, when it comes to the freedom of authority, the organization of Watchtower, which is the governing organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, they have what's called a governing body.

And the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses dictates faith, life, and practice for all 8 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

They're the publishers of Watchtower magazine, publishers of all their publication books where they receive new light, information, doctrine, dogma, and all those things get funneled into the hearts and minds of Jehovah's Witnesses through the governing body.

And the governing body says that the organization of the Watchtower is what they call mother. And so growing up,

I knew that we had, okay, Jehovah's our father, Jesus Christ is the son of God, but the organization is our mother.

It's the instrument that God is using to nurture God's people. And so we looked at the organization as a very motherly figure.

Same thing in Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism sees the church, the institution, the organization as our mother.

The Roman Catholic Church says that the church itself is the interpretive power, namely the message of the

Pope. The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses says that the organization alone is the interpretive power, specifically through the governing body or the faithful discreet slave.

Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's in their publications.

They don't use it much today because I think they figure it sounds pretty weird. But they have some pretty weird interpretations of the

Bible generally. So for instance, in 2 Corinthians chapter 12, we read over that several weeks ago in our own groups, but there's a vision that Paul talks about, right?

He says, when the body of God is blind in a dome, he sees things that are inexpressible.

When he's caught up to the third heavens, there it is. Right? Remember that? Here's how Jehovah's Witnesses interpret that verse.

They say, don't believe your lying eye. We don't. Paul doesn't go to heaven, actually. What he actually sees in that vision is

God's organization. That's like a spiritual paradise. And all the cohesiveness and brotherhood and the peace that exists between the organization and the brothers.

That's what Paul saw. He was looking forward to the organization headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. That's what

I was going to say. He was looking at Brooklyn. Yeah. And so that's how they interpret it.

Now, you know, my sister, before I had a letter to the

Lord several years ago, and we were talking about, okay, well, who can interpret the Bible? Who has the authority to interpret the

Bible? I'm like, Liz, do you know how they interpret this verse in Scripture? I'm going to read it to you, this verse, and then

I'm going to give you the Watchtower explanation. And I said, can you imagine your first century Christian reading

Paul's letter? And you're like, that's it. That's what Paul's talking about. He's talking about Brooklyn, New York.

He's talking about the Watchtower. That would be the furthest thing from my mind. That's not what he was talking about.

So when you kind of bring it to those really, you know, palpable terms, and you really put some good hermeneutics, thanks to Jesus, into the text, you can start showing people, okay, well, that's pretty ridiculous.

Same thing with Rome. Because Rome makes similar claims. They are saying, this is talking about us, the institution, the

Pope, all things which are foreign to the New Testament writers. There's no such thing as a Pope to the

New Testament writers. There's no such thing as a mother church. You know, the only time there's a reference to a mother, it's happening in Jerusalem.

And it's contrasting relations more between King R, the promise of slavery, and the free woman.

This is talking about, you know, essentially the elect and the un -elect. It's talking about God's salvation to his people.

It's not talking about there's actually a mother in heaven or an organization that's motherly, that's nurturing

God's people. This is talking about, you know, the destinies of two distinct peoples. And so, you know, there'd be a very wrong interpretation.

There's another group out there that believes in a mother God. And they're becoming quite popular.

They're a Southeast Asian movement. And they believe in this mother God woman, you know, theory that God has actually comprised of also

God the mother. It's very strange. But I remember a lady at the drive -thru back when

I was, you know, young, restless and reformed. And at the drive -thru, I was like, oh, evangelize to the lady who was on the other side of the drive -thru.

And I'd say, you know, I'd give my order. And I'd say, hey, do you know about Jesus? And then when we pulled up, she says, do you guys know about Mother God?

I said, oh my God. Are you talking about Mary? The Virgin Mary? I thought maybe they're Catholic. Like, no, no,

Mother God. The lady actually handed me a pamphlet, and I handed her a pamphlet. It was a really interesting conversation that we had, you know, one morning at a drive -thru at McDonald's.

But you never know what happens when you evangelize and you share the gospel. You'll have funny stories like that.

So I think that's about your question before we move on. The mother issue? Yeah. Well, it's not the mother issue, but the...

Do you mind if I bring that up? Go for it. I guess, how do we bounce it off that we don't commit a similar mistake that the gentleman made weeks ago where all he has is a

Bible and radio programs? Yeah. That's a great question. You know, on one end, again, when you hold to sola scriptura, you hold to the infallibility of the scriptures, you've got to recognize that the scripture talks about God's people.

It talks about the church, the need of the church, our inclusion into the church.

And so it's, you know, when you have what's called like the low Christian syndrome, you know, where it's just me and my

Bible, me and my radio program, and I don't need the church. The church took me and the church has done this, this, and that. The church has made a big, perfect human.

You know, everyone's imperfect except them and their regular roles, you know? And what a sad way of living a

Christian life. You're actually living in disobedience. Because Lord commands us. He doesn't ask us, he doesn't, you know, barter what he commands us to be together, to meet together, to be under the authority of the scriptures.

And so it's not something that we can walk back and say, well, we don't, the church is optional.

The church is not optional. It's absolutely essential. Because we're members of it through faith in Jesus Christ.

And then the practical members of it in the local sense. When we enjoy ourselves to the local church.

I think like Roman Catholics and even some evangelicals forget that soul scriptura doesn't mean that scripture is the only authority at all, you know?

And you have to describe all the authorities. It's the supreme authority. It's the supreme authority. But there's other authorities.

That's right. You know, that are. That's right.

Right. So that means that there's a level of authority vested into pastors, the local church.

There's an authority when we come together in Acts 18. All these things are to be weighed and considered rightly.

But it doesn't mean that the church itself becomes this thing that supersedes the scriptures or that it supersedes, you know,

God's intended place for it. So the church has its proper place, of course, in the scriptures. And we don't.

The church doesn't supersede the scriptures in that way. So the church has a subject in the scriptures. Versus what the

Roman Catholic view says is that, well, the Bible is true because the church says so. Well, then where does the church get the authority to say such a thing, if not from the scriptures?

Right? And actually, it's because they believe that comes directly from God. That Christ is the representation of the church or that Christ is the liberal head of that church.

And he's got some power, authority to vicar of hope. And so that's where they get their authority from, is the vicar of Christ.

So they supersede the Bible in that way, practically speaking. Any thoughts or questions on that?

Again, we're in a fourth chapter here in the book, Who Defines the Gospel? And one of the things

I wanted to bring out to you, again, is the, yeah, so the second

Vatican, on the second page of page 26, I want to read to you this quote from the second

Vatican. There's a statement on church authority and the interpretation of the word.

Notice what it says. The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what it has to be handed on, listening to it devotedly, regarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with the divine commission and with the help of the

Holy Spirit. It draws from this one deposit of faith everything that is present for belief as to finally reveal.

Notice what it continues to go on to say. It is clear, therefore, the sacred tradition, the sacred scripture, and the teaching authority of the church in accord with God's most wise design are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the other, and that altogether, each in its own way, under the action of the one

Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. Again, a lot of jargon, but what a dangerous statement.

What's so dangerous about that statement? What's so dangerous about that statement? You were saying that God divided it this way.

He did, absolutely. I'm not sure if you have a quote from the Watchtower, just a little bit of that. It's almost identical to that quote.

Yeah. And as Hartworth says, guarding it scrupulously, I guess that,

I mean, that hides a lot of working to let people read and understand for themselves what's the future.

Let's do kind of a history 101. Let's look at the early environment to what led to the

Reformation all the way back to Martin Luther in the 1500s. At that time, in the major language groups,

English, German, and others, if you went to an early

Catholic church, you didn't come to church with a Bible. There weren't Bibles in the pews. There was one

Bible that was read by a priest. Oftentimes, priests didn't even have access to the Bible. The only time they could read the

Bible was actually in seminary. So oftentimes, they had to memorize certain scriptures because sometimes they themselves did not have it.

And when they did have it, it was in a dead language, Latin, of which the common people mostly did not read, know, or understand.

And so in those days, the common person of faith was not allowed access to God's Word.

Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church wanted to guard it against various interpretations, wanted to guard it against so much so that should you be caught with a

Bible in a common language, do you know what the penalty would be? Death by burning.

Burning at the stake. That's how serious of an offense it would be to own a Bible in the medieval times under the

Roman Catholic rule. That brings into context why the church is so afraid of the

Bible to be the hand of the common man. Right? You had your hand up? Oh, yeah.

Also, one of the problems they had too was that they were withholding the sacraments from the laity.

So they weren't giving communion or they weren't giving it really frequently at all or they were giving half of it, you know, and they were withholding the sacraments from the people as well.

Yeah. And again, the church set itself up as the final forty in these matters.

And so, again, quite literally, if you want to believe something, it's because Rome told you so. Right? So whatever

Rome tells you, you believe that because they said so and they know what's best for you. Versus what does the

Bible teach? What does the Bible say? They couldn't even read the Bible. They couldn't even have it in their hand. It was not accessible to them.

So one of the sins of Martin Luther was that he wanted the Bible to be accessible to everyone. Yeah. I would add, you mentioned in the

Middle Ages, I know of at least one story in the late 1800s.

You know, it went on like that where people would be burned at the stake for having the Bible in their own language all the way. Or, you know, some method of execution.

All the way. That would be one heck of a way of excommunication. All the way through the 1800s.

And a lot of people don't realize how recently it is that Rome formally allowed people to read the

Bible in their own language. You know, around that turn of the century, they couldn't enforce it anymore.

But, yeah, it wasn't until, when? Mid -1900s? Yeah. Like in 56, when Luther counted. Yeah. Right.

So mid -1900s here. A lot of people have no idea how recent in history was

Roman Catholicism allowed people to read the Bible. That's right. Yeah. I mean, they instilled the blood of martyrs for hundreds of years.

And certainly, they did not want the Bible in the hands of the common people.

For a reason. And we're going to get to some of the reasons. But I want to draw a comparison here to the Watchtower organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Again, I sort of said to you earlier that Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics see each other as moral enemies.

Kind of a fun fact, actually. The previous pope who just died, Pope Benedict. His sister. You know, they were

Germans. They grew up in Nazi Germany. His sister was actually a devoted Jehovah's Witness.

And he was the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. And so Pope Benedict's sister was a

Jehovah's Witness. Very interesting how those two diverged. But I think actually served the same false cause to some extent.

The cause of the same. I want to read to you. Remember, just keep in mind what we just read from these councils.

Council of Friends and Second Vatican. And notice what the Jehovah's Witnesses say and teach.

All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that really the first wisdom of God can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet soul.

You see the similarities? One hand, you see the Roman Catholic Church says you can only know the

Bible, this great wisdom of God, through the church. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the same language saying you can only know this great wisdom of God through Jehovah's channel of communication, i .e.

the watchtower. They also said this. Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise.

To it alone, God's sacred word. The Bible is not a sealed book. So to them, they think that all of Christians who read the

Bible, that they're reading it as like a sealed book. They can't understand it. There's all these interpretations. That's why all these churches and denominations.

And that's a similar thing that Rome is. Rome says the same thing. They say, well, look at you Protestants. You know, have you ever heard a

Roman Catholic say there's 18 ,000 denominations in Protestantism? You ever heard that?

They say more. They say like 40. It's like how much is it now up there up to?

They say like 43 ,000. Yeah. You know where they get that number though? It's actually a pretty bogus number. But you know where they get it from?

No. No? Does every non -denominational church count as a denomination? Yeah. So basically, yeah.

So basically they do. Everything that's incorporated, that's not part of a mainline church, they incorporate that as their own denomination.

So it could be a little storefront church with 12 people. And that's an entire denomination in mind. It's a bogus number.

You know, realistically, there are about maybe 30 or so real mainline denominations in Protestantism.

But yeah, to get to just like 34 ,000, it's just ridiculous. They're counting, you know, anything that's appropriate that's not part of a mainline denomination.

But oftentimes, even those churches have some resemblance or DNA that's traced back to one of these mainline denominations.

It's mostly within Baptist circles and Protestant charismatic circles, you know, just independent fundamentalist groups.

They all do share a common DNA with something that's bigger than they are, but they just don't incorporate it.

So that's how they get to those bogus numbers. Yeah, there's not actually 34 ,000

Christian denominations. I mean, I dare you to name more than, you know, 20.

You can't. You probably can't. So any thoughts or questions on that? Yeah. I know we're dealing with religious groups, but let's say you're a university student and you're doing a course in the

Bible art from secular professors. I guess, what's the authority? I guess, what's the culture of the secularists? I believe we're

Lord Jesus Christ. No, no, no. I mean, what's their authority? What's that? Themselves. What's their authority?

Well, of course, it's going to be themselves, right? If you look at secularists and people like Mark Ehrman, who is an apostate who believed in evangelical doctrine and then reverted to or became an apostate and turned against the scriptures, he's the authority, right?

So if you hear his podcast, you'll hear this stuff. He says, well, I'm a scholar. I know what I'm talking about. Right? Essentially, he says,

I'm the authority. Just shut up and listen to me. I've done the research. So they become the authority. So this scholastic mindset becomes the authority as well.

This trust in liberalism becomes the authority. Right? So the secularism is a religion of a particular type.

It is a type of religion. Yes, John? It seems the sin of this type of belief would be rooted in pride.

Would you agree? Absolutely. No doubt about that. I'm just recalling when

I was dating my wife 35 years ago, we were at a meeting.

She was involved with a church that was Armenian, but there was a split taking place. There were some in the church reading

Al Martin's stuff and saying, no, we're wrong the way we read this.

So there was a click going on. She got involved with that click. And one of the pastors, when

I was meeting her, met with one of these Bible studies to see what was being taught about Al Martin's premises and stuff.

And he confronted me about wanting to marry Cezaire. And he says, after our conversation about free will and God's sovereignty, he finally said, he got really flustered.

And he said, I'm an analyst, and I know. And that was supposed to end the conversation.

OK, I realized, don't go any further with it. I didn't press it. And I said,

OK, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But his reason for his assertion was that rooted in his understanding as an analyst, he was superior in his understanding of the

Scriptures. I don't want to see that as pride. That's right. I love a guy or a person who is confident in their interpretation of Scripture.

I love that. Even if I'm wrong, I appreciate people's confidence. I've got a friend, my mentor,

Stan Felder. He's a Texan Baptist. And he is sure as pain can be that Babylon becomes the city of London.

And I'm like, I don't think that's right, man. But hey, he's certain that it is.

He looks at you with these eyes like, you just don't know. It's like you're glib.

You don't know. But he's certain that it's that. And I was like, I think you're wrong.

But I really appreciate your enthusiasm. So I appreciate folks like that sometimes.

But also pray for them and help them interpret the Scriptures right. And it comes down to this, really, is just how and who gets to interpret

Scripture. Right? The Roman Catholic Church is, you guys are a mess.

And that's what I think was the part of page 48, the subheading.

But look at the mess you're in. And what was meant by that? What was meant by that? Yeah. Look at you guys.

You can't agree on anything. You Christians, you don't have any unity. You have no cohesiveness. There's no overarching consensus on very important topics.

Which I would actually disagree with. I think that for the majority of Christians, we do have overarching consensuses of the big things.

Such as the gospel, Jesus Christ, his humanity, his divinity, his trinity, his resurrection.

There's so many things that we don't have in common as a Christian people. And it's when we get into the great things that we begin to have disagreements and conversations.

Most of which I would say, again, if we're talking about born -again Christians, we're talking about in -house debates.

We're talking about in -house conversations. That we can have differences of opinion with our Presbyterian brothers.

We can have differences of opinion with other Methodists. And there are other groups that we can consider brothers and sisters in the

Lord. And have serious theological dialogue where we disagree.

But also rejoice in having people together in our common faith. And I think that's what people in the

Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Roman Catholics. Again, I would consider Roman Catholicism a cult because it follows the same pattern.

And Jehovah's Witnesses follow the same authority pattern as Roman Catholicism.

And what they can't understand is that how can you have unity without conformity?

They say, listen, we believe in the same, all Roman Catholics believe the same thing. We're all worshiping the same way every

Sunday in Mass. It's the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. Every Sunday Jehovah's Witnesses gather.

They are singing the same songs. They're reading the same Watchtower magazine. And they're, you know, examining the same information at the same time.

In all the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses. All 39 ,000 congregations. And the

Catholics say the same thing. Look, we've got this cohesiveness. We're all in the same cage. But I don't think conformity is indicative of unity.

What do you think on that issue? Is uniformity or conformity necessary for unity?

Emmanuel? I mean,

I yell at this sometimes. Because, I mean, you know, you can pass it as like we have one mind.

So how does that play out? I want you to work that out, man. Work that out.

That's a great scripture. 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 10. Yes. There's some conformity.

Not in the ways that, you know, these folks say. But it's like conforming yourself to the image of Christ.

And, you know, when Christ talks about the body, there being different members. And, you know, I think they kind of want every member to be the same, you know, blueprint.

They all want to be the foot. They all want to be the mouth. Yeah. That's a great analogy. That's 1 Corinthians chapter 12.

1 Corinthians chapter 12 talks about there being many members, but there is one body. And that every member serves the same function.

And so there is diversity in the body of Christ.

It's not just uniformity where we all have to conform to the same thing every single way up to plenty.

There is a great diversity. And a diversity is a strength of the church, not a weakness. Yeah. I was going to say something similar about the body.

But also it seems like part of God's design for us not just to be like fallible creatures, but also very changeable.

You know, our life spans are relatively short. We've got so many years of maturing before we understand these things.

And so even in a really healthy set of people, everyone is going to be at a different level of understanding. No one is going to be able to have a perfect conformity with each other by design, even in the best of circumstances.

And I think that's how God wants it for us to be different and encouraging each other. Amen. I think it would be important if we examined some of the verses in the 1

Corinthians chapter 12 being incurred there. There are certainly areas in which we have to conform, obviously.

And I think when Paul starts that off, when he's talking about spiritual gifts in chapter 12, starting in verse 3, he shows what are some of the commonalities that we might have.

He says in verse 3, Therefore, I want you to understand that no one speaking in the spirit of God ever says,

Jesus is a curse. And no one can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit.

So what Paul is saying is, listen, we have to have the majors in common.

The fact that Jesus is Lord, we can't even go beyond, we can't talk about all these other matters unless we agree on this aspect.

That Jesus is Lord. So before we even go to spiritual gifts, we have to have this common ground. This conformity of doctrine in relation to who

Jesus is. But then he says, But there are a variety of gifts of the same Spirit. There are varieties of service with the same

Lord. There are varieties of activities, but it's the same God who empowers them all and everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the

Spirit for the common good. And that manifestation of the Spirit being various gifts, so they're not all the same.

And you have some of this stuff in charismatic circles too, where you have some charismatic groups that say, All have to speak in tongues.

That's not what Paul says. Paul says, do all speak in tongues? No. And so the diversity, again, is a strength in the economy of God's people.

It's not a weakness, it's a strength. And then he goes on to say all the way down in verse 12. It just says,

The body is one and has many members. And all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, were all made to drink of the one

Spirit. But it says, For the body does not consist of one member, but of many. The foot should say, because I am not a hand, do

I not belong to the body? That would not make it any less part of the body.

So again, this analogy of body parts. Your hands don't have the same function as the feet.

Your brain doesn't have the same function as the heart. These are all things that are independent but working together cohesively.

Right? If you were just one big walking brain, that wouldn't really work out well. Diversity is needed for life.

Diversity is needed for the living organism of the church.

Yes, ma 'am. I kind of see it through an analysis.

I see it as unbelief. There are right -wing ministries where if you don't vote red, it doesn't look good.

But at the same time, you have people going vote. So it's like...

And then when election season comes around, yellow says it's splintering. So how does the church remain unified?

We say unified even in the midst of political division because our unity is not dependent on who we vote for.

It's dependent upon Jesus Christ. I do think that if you are a person of strong biblical convictions, you will vote a certain way.

But that's not necessarily through party lines. It's through issues. So we shouldn't be a people that are tribal, that we vote only with our tribe because our tribe can get it wrong.

We shouldn't vote on issues. For instance, those of a pro -life Democrat, I would vote for a pro -life

Democrat. That's very possible. I'd have to look at some other issues as well, not just that issue.

But certainly, theoretically, if there's someone running for president right now, I think he has no shot at winning.

I'd actually really like to get a single drop of Kennedy. Do you have a Kennedy running for president? He's saying a lot of really interesting things that I really agree with.

I think abortion would be wonderful. But I haven't heard him talk about that. When you look at the pro -life, abortion, equal protection kind of politics, you'll see that in red states –

I talk with a lot of people involved in the lobbying and all the lawyers and stuff like that.

And they say the biggest problem is that it's pro -life Republicans stopping equal protection bills and stuff like that for unborn children.

A perfect example of that would be Rand Paul several years ago, a senator from Kentucky, put in a bill, a pro -life bill, and no one in the

Republican Party wanted to vote for it. They all voted on a pro -life problem. They didn't want to do it. They're not actually true to their convictions.

So you'll have people who give lip service to conservative values, Republican values, but then when it comes to voting, they won't do it.

They won't show up. And so those are things that have to be taken into account as well. Our unity is not a political unity.

It's a spiritual unity. And it's dependent upon Jesus Christ as a source, as an advocate, as a true king. And I think

Jesus said something that's important. I think Christians often have to remind ourselves of what he says. My kingdom is no part of this world.

If it were, my people would have fought. My disciples would have taken off their swords.

They would have used the Second Amendment right and would have charged in order to preserve

Christ. But Christ knew his kingdom was not earthly. It was spiritual. His kingdom was not one that was going to be headquartered in Jerusalem or Rome or rather in heaven.

And so we have to remember that our citizenship according to Philippians chapter 3 is in heaven. From where we await the

Savior, we're going to Jesus Christ. Our Savior isn't coming from Washington, D .C. It's not going to come from the capital of any major city.

It's coming from heaven. That's where our citizenship is. That's where our Savior is coming. If we fix our eyes on Jesus, everything when it comes to political life and issues becomes secondary.

We're actually preaching the gospel as we ought to be. We're changing hearts and minds. That's when we're going to see a shift in the culture.

And so sometimes I think Christians in America have it wrong. They think they can change the culture by voting.

But they can only change the culture of how people vote when they change people's hearts and minds.

And that can only be done through the gospel. So if you change hearts and minds, then people will vote accordingly. But if you just vote, look at the whole thing in a broken way.

I'm ecstatic that a broken way was overturned. But has that changed anything fundamentally in America?

No. People's hearts and minds, people who were pro -choice are still pro -choice. It's not like the law changed my heart.

You know what? All of a sudden now, this edict came from Washington. It changed my heart, and now I'm pro -life.

That didn't happen. It's never going to happen. The government does not have the power to change hearts. Only the gospel does.

So that's our unity. It's the gospel. Does that make sense? Any other thoughts or questions?

Okay. So back to Rome. One of the issues that Rome brings up again is this supposed unity.

And this conversation we just had, I think it's helpful because it brings to mind where our unity actually stems from.

And it's the gospel. Which is why it's important that we ask the question, do we share the same gospel with the

Roman Catholic Church? Do we have the same heritage and the same conviction on the gospel?

And the question of the chapter is, well, before we even answer that question, we have to understand where the authority comes from to define the gospel.

And the answer of the Roman Catholic Church is that the pope or the church, the mother, gets to define who or what the gospel is.

Versus a Christian understanding, which is that we let the Bible determine what the gospel is.

And we believe that. Another part of this is in page 50.

It's a subheading of the great scandal. What is the great scandal? I want someone to define to me what does that mean?

Priesthood of the believer. What does that mean? Priesthood of the believer.

Anyone else have any other insight to what that means when we talk about priesthood of the believer?

Okay. One part of it. Go on, Patrick. Help us out here. No need for an additional mediator.

You don't have any direct access. How does that contrast with Roman Catholicism?

You need to go through them. They mediate. That's why they have priests, right, to confess your sins. You know, they'll hem and haw about how, oh, well, you can't all say confess your sins.

But you have to. Just a minute, Jesus. But you have to. You still have to go through them. They're still mediating in some sense.

Same thing with interpretation to not just that one directional communication but both. The Bible says we only have one mediator,

Jesus Christ, but they stick another mediator in that chain. So you have to go through them. And that's the scandal that Roman Catholicism says is that every person who has the

Bible can now be the interpreter of the Bible. It can be the authority on the Bible. The great scandal is that the

Church of Rome has taken the spot of individuals and more specifically of Jesus Christ, who is a true only mediator of God's people.

And so in the institution of Roman Catholicism, the priesthood is very important.

Interesting enough, we have the Mormon Church here. We have some of the Mormons here. And they also hold to a very interesting idea of the priesthood.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but they hold to two priesthoods. There is the Aaronic Priesthood, stemming from the

Biblical priesthood. And then there's what they call the Melchizedek Priesthood. And so there's two stages of the priesthood.

So for every male member of the Church, when you're like 13 years old, you have to enter into what's called the

Aaronic Priesthood. So you become kind of a miniature 13 -year -old priest.

And that's why when you see Mormons knocking on your door and you have a 19 -year -old who calls himself an elder, it's because he's been a priest since he was 12.

So by the time he's 18, 19, 20, he's already been an elder. They have a very interesting view of the priesthood too, that the keys of the kingdom, the authority of the

Church is vested in this priesthood. And I would agree with that completely.

But not that it is invested in one particular set of males or, you know, a priest from Rome that's been blessed and sent out.

But rather it's invested in every single person who's a believer in Christ Jesus. Every single believer in Jesus is a part of a royal priesthood.

We are a part of a holy nation. And notice the language that we see in Scripture in relation to that in 1

Peter 2. It says in starting with verse 9, this is after Peter makes an argument about Christ being a cornerstone and we ourselves being living stones, making up that edifice.

In verse 9, he concludes his thought process and makes a statement, quoting actually from Deuteronomy, or alluding to it at least, or it's in Leviticus.

And he says, but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

And so is he talking about, who's he talking to? Is he talking about this passive priest within this institution?

Or in other words, he goes on to say, once you were not a people, referring to the Gentiles who have now been included, he says, but now you are

God's people. Once you have not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which gore against your soul.

He says, keep your conduct among the Gentiles. Honorable said, when they speak against you as evil -doers, they may see your good deeds in glorifying

God on the day of visitation. And so it's very clear when we look at the context, it's not about believers.

Now all of us share in common this royal priesthood, that we are part of a holy nation, we're a people of his own possession, we proclaim the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.

That's what you've been called to, that's the people of God, that's you and I. So it's not just this exclusive class of people, which in the

Throne of the Catholic Church, I'll give you the fancy words that they use. They use the terms clergy and laity.

Anyone know what the clergy means? What's the clergy? It's the ruling class, right?

Yeah, it's the ruling class. It's essentially like the priests, the bishops, the archbishops, the people of hope.

That's what they mean when they say the clergy, it's those who have ecclesiastical authority. And then you have the laity.

Laity meaning the common people in the pews. You are a laity.

So they will distinguish between the laity and the clergy. Whereas in Protestantism, by and large, more so the evangelical side especially, you still have kind of the high church views of certain

Protestant churches that hold very loosely to kind of a Roman architecture in terms of church ecclesiology.

Where they do have high offices as bishops, archbishops, and they do have ecclesiastical powers that the normal average person doesn't.

But by and large, a biblical understanding of ecclesiology, which is just the study of church, we would say that every person who is a member of the church is a priest.

It is responsible even for being a minister. I would go so far as to say that every

Christian is a minister. You're either a good one or a bad one. You're either an obedient one or you're a disobedient one.

But every Christian has a responsibility to minister in God's word. That's why we have the

Great Commission. Go ye therefore and go into the nations baptizing them in the imposter

Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I command you. We all have that same commission. It's not just for the pastors.

The Great Commission is not just for the clergy. It's for all of God's people. So I hold very strongly to the priesthood of the believer.

So the scandal of Rome when they look at prophets is to say, how can you possibly believe that?

How can you possibly believe otherwise? Because we are a holy priesthood. We are a peculiar people of his own possession.

So any thoughts or questions on that aspect of the priesthood of the believer? Every Christian, and this is actually going to be part of my sermon today, so it's going to tie in quite nicely, is the responsibility that we have as Christians and the purpose of our lives as Christians, which is to be proclaimers of God's kingdom and to preach the gospel.

For this purpose, Jesus says in Luke chapter 4, verse 4 and 3, for this purpose

I have come forth. It's that I have come to preach the good news.

And that's the purpose of all lives as well, is to preach the good news of Jesus Christ. Let's be a nation of holy priests.

And let's show Rome what it looks like to be that holy priesthood of believers who put forth in common these great confessions of faith in Jesus Christ.

Any thoughts or comments on this, Deacon? Any questions that may have arisen? John? What I appreciate about this church is that the leadership here tries to teach the whole counsel of God.

There was a pastor here, Pastor Downing, years and years ago. He used an example of how at that time, the early 80s, they were love,

God's love was the big emphasis. And it was overemphasized in a lot of respects to the exclusion of God's other activities.

And he used the example of a body builder or a strong man. The purpose is to create a uniform physique.

He said God's love is part of that. But if you take only his love and remove it from the rest of him, it becomes grotesque and repulsive.

So that the uniformity of the body builder is wonderful. It represents something that God made.

But if you just remove his arm and pull it back and say, isn't this a beautiful arm? No, it's no longer beautiful.

It's perverted. Now imagine if someone in the church started to say, a pastor or a person of authority said, maybe

I can interpret the scriptures for you. You shouldn't even, don't even pick up the Bible. Leave it in the pew.

Just listen to what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you how to interpret the scripture. What would you be, what should be your reaction to that?

You either fire that pastor or you get out of the church. Because that would be a gross abuse of authority.

It's not vested in pastors. It's not vested in us to make such claims. Which is why the

Bible tells us, as individuals, that you have to test all things. The whole vast stuff, which is good.

We have to constantly test the spirits. 1 John 4, verse 1. Test all the spirits. There are many false prophets that have gone on to the world.

If you're a Roman Catholic, you can't do that objectively. Because the answer will always be the same.

Trust Rome. Rome has the answers. Rome is the infallible interpreter of God's word.

You can't properly test that which you are told not to question. No pastor is infallible.

There have been plenty of times where I preached. I can remember one time in particular. I was preaching at my previous church.

I was just a group of preachers. I said something. As soon as I said it, that didn't come out right.

That wasn't exactly right. I knew that there were certain people who were wise enough to catch that.

I kept hearing from them. That's a good thing. We're not up there. We're not infallible.

We're not perfect. Sometimes we will err. Neither myself nor Pastor Colleen have perfect theology on all things.

But we sure do strive to teach the whole counsel of God according to our own understanding.

In accordance with a great multitude that have come before us. That's why we are a confessional church.

We do hold fast to the common faith that has come before us.

Father, we are so thankful for this time that you've given us.

Where we can examine this issue of Roman Catholicism. The controversy that exists there. Father, help us to have a home of heart.

Help us not to use this knowledge and exalt ourselves over others. Not to just point out the flaws of another religious institution.

But Lord, help us to also examine our own flaws. Where we have, maybe we have erred. Or maybe we have fallen short of your perfect glory.

Father, may this not just be an examination of others, but may it be an examination of ourselves. Father, that we would not, while looking at others, become disapproved of ourselves.

So Father, we pray for a home of heart as we approach these matters. And we would graciously use this information to help others who are trapped in false religion.

Who are trapped in the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism. And Father, that we would also be empowered by spirit.

To bring forth this good news. This message of hope and salvation through Jesus Christ. That is of no effort of our own.

It is by grace alone that we can be saved. Through the merits and the finished work of Jesus Christ.